Yeah, and to quote the article: "The resulting boost in performance comes at the cost of 216 W of actual power consumed!" (I might ask how much more we'll pay in electricity bills).
Also, you'll need DDR2-800 memory, which is in fact part of the performance boost. 1GB of OCZ DDR2-800 is about $140 (not bad). In June AMD's new dual cores will allow the use of DDR2-800 memory, too. Probably not at $130 per processor, but maybe some of the low end processors can be cranked up with this faster memory (with AMD's lower power consumption).
Some people argue that high speed memory isn't important. I think that argument is referring to the latency times, not the actual frequency. You can't argue that 800 isn't faster than 533, but you might argue that 2.5 CAS doesn't buy much vs. 3.0 CAS.
To get past 3.8 GHz they had to start using a water cooling solution. ($$).
Nonetheless, this all does seem pretty impressive.
If they gave it away for FREE I wouldn’t be tempted. Intel can’t hold a candle to AMD dual cores. Time is money (especially rendering time) and, IMHO saving a few bucks on a slow Intel is not a wise investment of your time. (just one man’s opinion but my AMD dual core ROCKS!)
> Personally, I'd rather have a slow intel (currently P4 @ 1.8 here) rather than to have any AMD.
Your argument is obviously a religious one since you would rather own a slower processor than buy AMD. My argument is purely business driven. I did not say I would never buy Intel. I said I would never use their current dual core line because they are poor performers. I have never owned an AMD in my life before I got my Athlon X2 dual core. I always bought Intel. But as others have pointed out, Intel dual core has lost every benchmark to AMD by a significant margin and my AMD runs circles around the other Intel boxes that I still have. So this is not a religious argument nor an opinion. The facts are, the fastest processors for video rendering are AMD right now. Like I said, time is money and deadlines are always too near. Even a free Intel is not worth it if it takes twice as long to render your project and you miss a deadline because of it.
JR - that is one side of the business argument: Make faster renders. The other side, specifically for me, I want to see faster better Previewing of my work. Might be a naive question here, but how and will this be the case? Will Vegas make USE of faster better DUALLIES or QUADS even, to getting nearer to 25fps as I require? Will it show BACK to me my creativity slicker and more what the end user/customer will see? Huh, come to that me too?
Point in case here is that yesterday I've done some work - high energy stuff - and it has only, ONLY when I've seen it on a rendered out MPG DVD that I've thought .. hmmm . . . Near but not near enough for me. And of course the faster Vegas can show-back at me my ideas the more I will experiment with even more outrageous stuff. You see my point? Upping rendering speeds is one thing - I guess the grunt under the bonnet (hood) will see to that, but will/can/could Vegas ever make use of the extra Ummphh to improve the Previewing experience?
Garnering creativity thru' better Previewing IS the otherside of this power hunt which in turn creates more business too. Sometimes I feel this is too often ignored on this forum - more's the pity really. It seems this falls into a distant 2nd place, being lead by "better render speeds" business case?
Um, I think Intel was trying to keep AMD down because they are a rival company. This was the case when AMD did not make a better product. When you walk into a Ford Dealership they don't tell how great the new Toyotas are.
Grazie... just read this "The other side, specifically for me, I want to see faster better Previewing of my work. "
I agree 100%. I can live with longer renders, it's the slow playback on previews I would like to see improved. Having better previewing would make us a more capable to try new things and go for that next level in our work. I have a P4 3.0 and I wonder if I upgraded to "DUALLIES" would my previews preview better, or would it be just faster render times? Even rendering to a new track doesn't cut it: I'll watch, find a thing I want to change, mute the new track, make the change, then proceed. It really kills flow and causes me to say, more often than I should, "well that's good enough."
Here is a vote to faster previews even at the expense of slower renders.
I've just burnt a DVD. It looks good. I'm happy but my timings good have been tighter on stuff I really know HOW to do. Aesthetically it would have been better and I completely agree - knowing and seeing slippy, slick sexy and slithery smooth movement is what I'm after.
I've got a 3.2gHz - it ain't no slouch when it comes to renders. I'm happy - ish - but truthfully? If Vegas could somehow make USE of the grunt in a better way for preview . . woah! At the moment much weight is given over to the excellent work it does with monster files and how it handles a plethora of formats. GREAT! But where and how is my creativity "growth" option being nurtured? - I'm needing something a bit more than SHIFT+B?
But I mustn't grumble . . life is good and the Sun shines over London today . .